Compressors are a very efficient system. The inefficiency is caused by electricity, electromagnetic inductors are very inefficient especially at high requirements. The solution is to adopt mechanical energy directly without conversion. For example, use generation systems to generate mechanical energy and use it directly, bypassing electrical losses.
Wind generator are ideal , they are shutdown 20 to 40% of the time for low Wind, hig hwinds, because solar is over production so direct drive Wind waterpump are ideal. Plus the tower can be designed as a air tank becoming almost cero investment in storage.
Compress air without losing heat ? I don't think so... even with the water to cool it down, it does not change anything to the fact that we will lose energy there anyway, the only difference is that the heat goes into the water.
This video is merely for promotional purposes, and I believe that Augwind Corporation will hard achieve commercial success with this energy storage system. I hail from China, a nation that leads the world in compressed air energy storage (CAES) and liquid air energy storage. Similar to the Augwind water piston system, research has been conducted at Xi'an Jiaotong University and Hunan Electric Power Research Institute, where proof-of-concept systems were built. A former colleague of mine studied a similar system, constructed a prototype, and demonstrated energy storage and release. However, due to the pressure vessel's limited pressure capacity, the energy density was so low that it lacked practical utility, thus serving only as a basic theoretical validation. Given current material technologies, no one can obtain high-pressure vessels capable of holding water and compressed air at relatively low costs and with long-term reliability. Just consider the high prices of carbon fiber and steel. Therefore, the water piston system is essentially unfeasible for general commercial energy storage. The Augwind system boasts three major features: firstly, it has essentially achieved isothermal compression (credible); secondly, it employs highly efficient water turbines for both compression and energy release (credible); and thirdly, it claims to have realized low-cost high-pressure vessels (completely unbelievable, as this would be a Nobel Prize-worthy achievement, rendering the need for salt caverns in CAES systems obsolete). The latest research progress in China suggests that the water piston system may be suitable for frequency regulation in power systems (offering an advantage over the massive investment required for pumped storage), rather than serving as a purely commercial energy storage solution.
Dear Sir. Many thanks for your interesting, educating and viable comment! Indeed, you have figured everything correctly. And just as you rightly recognize, due to the issue you raise- Current AirBattery configuration is designed to integrate to an underground geological cavern. We focus on the power component of the system (isothermal compression/expansion, pumps, turbines etc.), and we will use a cavern as the storage element of the system. I invite you to watch a newer clip from our demonstration site- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eyJIoSKtSss.html. With many thanks and best regards! Augwind's social team.
@@augwindenergy1333 Congratulations on your company's new progress, which is now very close to the 51% efficiency claimed by Xi'an Jiaotong University (almost the same water piston system). I have been following your company's project for two years, and it was seeing your project that led me to start looking for similar systems in China. I apologize for my possibly pessimistic views earlier, but I still believe that the road to commercial operation for similar systems may be quite challenging. I have considered several potential reasons for this, though they may not be entirely accurate: Firstly, the cycle efficiency of the water piston energy storage system is still relatively low. Currently, I see it at around 50%, which is far from the 80% expectation you mentioned earlier. The 80% figure is likely an ideal estimate based on large-scale systems similar to pumped storage. I suspect that small to medium-sized systems may struggle to achieve high efficiency, similar to CAES. Secondly, low-cost, reliable high-pressure containers are difficult to obtain. Currently, most CAES projects in China are salt caves, and others have heard of a 10MPa artificial chamber project in Gansu and a CAES in Guizhou that uses ground steel pipes. Salt caves are the most ideal, being both low-cost and reliable, but the relevant resources are still limited, and not every city has access to salt caves. Thirdly, the energy density of the water piston system is relatively low. Unlike the CAES system, the water piston system not only needs to store compressed air but also water, making the project site selection even more stringent. If your company's system also requires a container to hold the relatively high-pressure air after energy release, then the demand for containers will be greater, and the energy density will be lower; Fourthly, the system is quite complex. Combining pumped storage and air compression, the related control systems are more complex, and maintaining the stability of the water turbines may not be easy. Sudden changes in water pressure and air pressure (or even slow changes) are probably not easy to handle; Fifthly, as mentioned by @georgefleming864, cavitation is said to be quite difficult to deal with. In the end, no matter what, I hope to continue hearing good news from your company and wish you success!
Tank with compressed air is not entirely safe you can make it more safe by burying it underground however cost of building and maintance will increase significantly.
PRO: il sistema è interrabile, basso impatto ambientale CONTRO: bassa densità energetica, necessita di grandi superfici. Liquid air: PRO: densità energetica superiore CONTRO: alto impatto ambientale(credo per questioni di sicurezza non interrabile). VOLANI: Costosi, nulla sul mercato per uso abitativo. Per l'uso privato nulla oltre le butterie.. investirei in questa direzione. Dulcis in fundo... Solare-eolico> hho> Co2> metano (qui ci divertiamo con le effic enze) Quest'ultima soluzione dovrebbe essere fortemente incentivata poiche preleviamo dall' atmosdera la mostruosa Co2!
so the air can't directly push turbine like with wind power blades? Because if it could just be air meets turbine blades, that design could work for hybrid vehicles and electric plants.
I've been following this idea for quite a few years and really wanted to see some real world testing of this. However, I can't help but being worried about the many valves and pipe joints in the system to be under constant cyclic pressure. It is safer to have it buried underground so when a valve bursts, the jet stream won't poke a big hole in someone, but it also is more difficult to perform maintenance. Unfortunately, currently the most effective way to do hydroelectric energy storage is still pumping water to a very tall place.
Solar panels are for running water pumps to compress the air for storage during day time. Compressed air is for pushing the water to run the water turbines at night
This is not new and sadly not effective (and nothing you can fix without breaking physics). If you compress air at let's say 200 bar, you'd only be able to store 0.4kWh per m³ of pressurized space. Energy Density = (P * V) / (k * (γ - 1)). There is also some losses, with the efficiency being ~70% to compress it, and another loss at generating electricity, in total probably around ~50% regained energy. There are other ways like heating salt etc that are more sensible to store significant amounts.
@@sampleoffers1978 Probably extremly high, as you just grab existing energy. But the problems there are with the negative effects on climate, environment and on human health. Anyway, since we were talking about storing electricity, "using existing one laying around" isn't really comparable.
200bar is 2,900 psi…!!! Compressed air is efficient enough per cost $ wise. Steam power doesn’t need that high of psi… Solar panels are only 22% efficient
@@peckerpeter2078 PV is 22% efficient at converting an entirely free and abundant resource into electricity. That is entirely incomparable with storing already generated electricity. Yes 200 bar is 2900psi.. so? Who uses psi though if you can use bar. And what is your point with steam? Steam turbine is converting Thermal Energy to Electric energy. In this case we just want to store Electric energy. Point is: a) You cannot store alot of energy even in extremly pressurized air. In terms of density it is around 1500x less dense than modern lithium-ion batteries. b) Converting it into pressurized air, then re-generating electricity from it is inherently inefficient. At best 50% compared to 95% of batteries. So you will need 1500x more space to regain half the power you put in compared to batteries.
For christ sake. Just lower the cost of electric for us :( Dont store it! Rich bastards We want 0p!! You have 105% renewable energy for some countries - 5% exported. Why are we still paying 20p for electric!!!!! We are going to force this into action right now Free energy = hydrogen. = clean energy. Combining hydrogen/ compressed air/ nitrogen- to fuel cars and space ships etc. we can change the world! As we can import from other planets and move entire populations and build cities at extremely fast rates! Also building mega air and water cleaners for the oceans and skies. We are in a greenhouse We have unlimited resources to achieve total peace on earth The leaders are trying to force us to be broke/ live hard lives They are so bored they are spending trillions on war/ space bullshit Our society cant afford this We need free food/ free electric / clean air. Stop. You are all a bunch of greedy/ stupid men. We good people / smart people are not in power. The people need to control the voting rules/ when to vote/ what the vote is about One person created a system years ago & the system is stuck in a loop- spiralling into a bad future- for earth and humanity. It could be 30-70-200-6000 years time - that earth suffers a serious 99% wipeout of species due to our stupidity of controlling our environment & food prices/ electric prices
This is clear heretic what you writing. You calling somoene "rich bastards" and then you want make them to make energy for free and food for free? It's looks like you are bastard because wants someone to works for you for free... If its so easy to make why u do not start generating this energy on your own? Noone stops you.
The principle of this technology is about the same as that of the hydraulic air compressor. We know a lot about the HAC. A comment below says that this project has been on hold for five months. I wonder whether that is because they finally tried the idea and found a very hard problem with it. Since the water and the air are in direct contact in the storage tanks, as the pressure increases the water absorbs more and more of the air. When they use the compressed air that is still free inside the tanks to push the water through the turbine to produce power, the pressure in the water drops as it passes through the turbine. That pressure drop causes the dissolved air in the water to escape while the flow is still in the turbine. The turbine can't handle this two-phase flow, which becomes increasingly more air and less water per unit volume as it passes through. It is like the problem, only in reverse, that happens when a pump tries to pump a mixture of air or some other gas and water or some other liquid. It can't do it well enough, or at all. The technical explanation is set forth in many places including the internet, for instance, "pumping two-phase flow." In other words, Augwind did not know about, and did not anticipate, the Champagne Effect. This effect has been studied thoroughly. It became obvious more than forty years ago when water-compensated CAES became a subject of great interest. Because of this effect, it is very difficult to safely operate a water-compensated CAES cavern. (Hydrostor, beware.) And because of it, I do not see how Augwind can generate much power with this arrangement. They can store energy with it at high efficiency, but they won't get most of it back without a lot more research, probably some patentable discoveries, and a much longer time to market. I don't think they are nearly ready to sell their system. If this is the reason for putting the project on hold, it will be far from the first time that the problem of dissolved air in the water has put a stop to the dream.
Then they should have a piston that separate air from the water? You pump water, the piston moves and push the air into tanks. In the reverse mood - the air push the piston that will push the water into turbine.
While there could be many reasons for a 'project on hold' status (including complete implosion of the project), I think you may be misunderstanding their system. You say: //"Since the water and the air are in direct contact in the storage tanks, ..."// If you look at their patents (and video including this one), you'll see that they don't store the air in contact with the pressurized water. The air is stored separately in 'air only' storage tanks (1:20) Essentially they are using the water only as a 'hydraulic piston' and the contact only happens for a short period during a 'compression stroke' (0:55) Then, that 'piston' (they call it a "compression tank"), now near full of water, is returned to atmospheric and used as the supply tank for the compression stroke on an adjacent tank/piston. The output of compressed air is stored separately. The entire process is reversed for energy retrieval. Given the short time that the water is under pressure (low dwell time - low aeration), and the fact that the water is returned to atmospheric every stroke (equal or greater time for deaeration), I think you'll find that the "champagne effect" will be trivial. Your comment would however apply directly to Hydrostor and I haven't studied their system to see how they plan to handle it. My take.
@@johnborton4522 I think his points are pretty valid. Although the air and water are stored in separate tanks, the pumped water still dissolved a significant amount of air when pressurized, it will quickly even out all the water in the system. Once you start running the turbine with this water, the cavity would erode the turbine pretty quickly. A lot more research is needed to make this system work with the kind of reliability claimed in the video. For example, additives in the water or specially blended fluid to reduce air solvency. Or special gases that have very low solvency in a fluid.
@@hyphen2612 //" I think his points are pretty valid."// It's literally not valid to say they are stored together (as he did) when they are not stored together. //"A lot more research is needed to make this system work with the kind of reliability claimed in the video." // I don't disagree. My point of correction of his claim still stands though.
@@youtuberesearch7017You're not very educated on the most complex issues of the electric grid right? The problem isn't generating (clean) electricity, it is generating only as much as it's needed when it's needed. It happens to be that when the most energy is generated, it's when it is the least needed. So saving this electricity so that it can then be used when it IS needed is the difference between keep burning fossil fuels and finally be able to use renewable energy sources.
@@patrick594 Of course i'm not educated because i dont need so big electric generator. Most effective generators are most simplest not complex. But question was different maybe i didnt understood his question about price per Kwh
Solar can maybe power condensed air collection, then I'd think the released air could gradually turn wind blades. Then maybe even leave behind cold tank as it's releasing.
@@tich789 I am working on redox flow battery. I wondered capital investment ,efficiency and cost per Wh? interesting in share more information together
*Not sure about efficiency, I don't know about exact calculation, but carbon footprint will be near about 1% or may be less in this type of technology. This air battery is simple and better than any other acid creating battery. Polution is a huge problem ahead us. This planet is becoming sick actually. We should bring clean and green energy technology instead of increasing more and more pollution through our other movements.*
Wind and solar being abundant sources, the efficiency is still helped by no need to drill, process and transport fuel cargo. So that goes into efficiency as supporting auxiliary power source.
From what ive read this has very poor efficiency, like way below 50%. Why dont you just use electrolysis and split water into hydrogen and oxygen. You get to like 80% efficiency there and it doesnt need a lot space.
I think the efficiency of compressed air is better than that. Even the efficiency of photovoltaic panels reaches about 26%. In addition, the life cycle of electrolysis is short and it loses efficiency as the water continues to disintegrate. Perhaps there are better ways to analyze water.
